The Salvo Blog

March 01, 2012

I am stunned and sad today to hear of the loss of Andrew Breitbart. I interviewed Andrew last year. As it turned out, our interview, which had been scheduled weeks in advance, took place during the very week that he broke the Anthony Weiner Twittered sex pictures story. It was Andrew who coined the term "Weinergate." Andrew was also sick that week, occasionally breaking into a hacking cough mid-sentence. Even so, in the midst of an intense week, he gave me nearly an hour of his time, he was respectful, kind, and authentic.

Andrew possessed that rare but potent blend of courage and humility. He took on a corrupt media complex at great personal cost because it needed to be done. He leaves behind a wife, four children, and a growing media organization dedicated to reporting the truth the mainstream outlets don't. Click here to hear Andrew in his own words.

February 10, 2012

A new article has been added to the online archives: Intercourse Correction, The Devaluation of Chastity Before Marriage & How It Might Be Recovered by Marcia Segelstein. I've posted a sidebar from the article below. It's a good example of why people are sceptical, not of actual science, but of those who use the word to try to silence opposing views. Example: As implied below, if you disagree with Planned Parenthood's "definition" that sex is basically whatever you feel like it is (in your heart of hearts and pant of pants) and that it really has no function besides orgasm, then you aren't scientific.

Definition Abuse

As any good parent or teacher will tell you, knowledge about sex is vital to your child's development and well-being. But where will your child get that information? If it doesn't come from you, it will most likely come from one of the "leading authorities" of the day—like Planned Parenthood. And what do these authorities teach? Here is how Planned Parenthood defines sex on the Info for Teens page of its website:

What Is Sex?

People define "sex" in different ways. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as "sexually motivated behavior." This sounds right to us. But not everyone agrees with the dictionary or with us. People all have their own definitions of what "sex" and "having sex" means.

For many people, "having sex" means engaging in a range of intimate, physical behaviors by yourself or with another person or persons that can often (but not always) involve the genitals. For some people it's only penis-in-vagina intercourse. For some people it's only penis-in-anus intercourse. For some people it's genital rubbing without intercourse. For some people it includes oral/genital contact. For some it includes masturbation. The possibilities are many. For most experts (like Merriam-Webster and us) it includes all the above.

However you define it, being sexual with another person—whether that means kissing, touching, or intercourse—involves a lot of responsibility. It's very important to protect yourself against pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. And you need to make decisions about protection before you engage in vaginal, anal, or oral sex.

Notice how one Merriam-Webster definition is used—appropriated as a corroborating "expert," in fact—to imply that sex has nothing to do with pregnancy, except as a possible side effect that needs to be protected against. (And of course, no moral, relational, or even emotional aspects of sex are even mentioned.) It's as if PP were to define "eating" as "hunger-motivated behavior" that has many possible modes, but regarding which it is just as important to protect against good nutrition as to protect against food-borne infections. Reassuring, isn't it? •

February 03, 2012

In 1939 T. S. Eliot wrote in “The Idea of a Christian Society” that “[t]he problem of leading a Christian life in a non-Christian society is now very present to us.” The Christian who is not conscious of his dilemma “is becoming more and more de-Christianised by all sorts of unconscious pressure: paganism holds all the most valuable advertising space.”

Planned Parenthood Opens $8 Billion Abortionplex

TOPEKA, KS—Planned Parenthood announced Tuesday the grand opening of its long-planned $8 billion Abortionplex, a sprawling abortion facility that will allow the organization to terminate unborn lives with an efficiency never before thought possible.

During a press conference, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards told reporters that the new state-of-the-art fetus-killing facility located in the nation's heartland offers quick, easy, in-and-out abortions to all women, and represents a bold reinvention of the group's long-standing mission and values.

This article was the target of Facebook outrage from concerned readers who did not realize it was a satirical article, and there's a website devoted to mocking these people called "Literally Unbelievable".

While one should be called out for taking an Onion article seriously, the trouble with this particular Onion article is that it starts out not all that unbelievable (although that quickly changes). Well, since PP is in the news quite a lot these days, I thought I'd post some of Salvo's own attempts at satire.

February 02, 2012

"A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God." Guess who said that?

The speaker was none other than the world's most eminent cosmologist, Stephen Hawking. Was he attacking proponents of intelligent design? No; he was lamenting his latest birthday presents.

For Hawking's 70th birthday celebration, Lisa Grossman wrote in New Scientist, cosmologists got together to discuss the "State of the Universe." Hawking prepared a recorded statement for the occasion that included the comment quoted above. Good thing he didn't have to attend. His friends gave him "the worst presents ever," Grossman noted. Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University presented evidence that "the universe is not eternal, resurrecting the thorny question of how to kick-start the cosmos without the hand of a supernatural creator."

The article explains why none of the proposals for an eternal universe are workable: eternal inflation, a cyclic universe, and the "cosmic egg" hypothesis. In each case, the mathematics and the laws of physics can't eliminate the need for a starting point. This forces the community of naturalistic astronomers to face what they have been trying to avoid: a beginning.

Interesting. But my money is on the future man being more like the Borg. Technology will push the idea of "The Evolution of Man" in a direction that nature couldn't dream of. Although, I don't think nature alone could dream up that brainy looking possum-man pictured above either.

As I was walking to work this morning I passed a shop with the quote "The earth laughs in flowers -Ralph Waldo Emerson" painted on the window. It's a nice thought. But with that in mind came across this article in Scientific American:

I wanted to point you to another online resource to help you think critically on matters of sex and relationships. With conflicting stories like those cited above, it's helpful to have some guidance. This organization is called Abstinence and Marriage Education Partnership. Beyond what you would assume from the name, their basic message is simple. Sex is not free. And we all need to stop ignoring the cost.

Enough time has past to where we can evaluate the fallout of a culture-wide "consequence-free love" mentality. It simply has to be admitted that the worldview behind the sexual revolution is hollow and basically leaves each of us to figure it out for ourselves. Of course in a sense that's always been true, insofar as we all gotta grow up on our own and etc. But I'm talking more about how gone are the days when a dad gave his son actual, practical advice about women. And the same goes for moms and daughters. Few seem to have a clue. And consequently each generation is left, er, groping in the darkness. And the results of such confusion can be devastating for men and women.

For our part here at Salvo, each issue of the magazine contains a section devoted to sex. Here's a short list of some of our more popular (and vilified) articles from the website:

January 30, 2012

So there's talk of erecting an atheist temple in London. Why? Well, it's supposed to be seen as a more positive way to get the message out about atheism, as opposed to the favored methods of the prominent atheists (methods such as shaming, mocking, and belittling). So just what does the famous atheist Richard Dawkins think about the temple idea?

“Atheists don’t need temples,” the author of The God Delusion said. “I think there are better things to spend this kind of money on. If you are going to spend money on atheism you could improve secular education and build non-religious schools which teach rational, sceptical critical thinking.”

Sure, something like a bus ad is probably the more brilliant way to go.

Physicists already have reason to suspect that our universe - everything we can see - is only one universe among perhaps billions. Some theorists postulate a multiverse of foam, where the universe we know is just one bubble. Each bubble has its own laws and constants. Our familiar laws of physics are parochial bylaws. Of all the universes in the foam, only a minority has what it takes to generate life. And, with anthropic hindsight, we obviously have to be sitting in a member of that minority, because, well, here we are, aren't we?

Here is the basic thought process: We are here >>> There is no god >>> Odds of life are infinitesimal >>> Multiverse.

Now, I enjoy a good debate about these issues, but I also believe that one can employ critical thinking and rationality to statements like the above and end up being skeptical.